SCROTUS: The Supreme Council Of Toxic Unhinged Sexism

This week, SCOTUS told states they have the power of life and death for pregnant women because only states have the right to determine if abortion is permitted under any circumstance, including saving the life of the mother. (Think ectopic pregnancy here which is now untreatable in those states with full criminalization of abortion, thereby guaranteeing the death of the woman, and no, you cannot retrieve an ectopic pregnancy and replant it in a uterus.)

At the same time, they told New York State it didn't have the power to control how guns are carried. Justice Clarabell Thomas said

The Second Amendment protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” 

I guess that includes the right of self-defense against first and second graders, especially if, as some lawmakers would like, the teachers are armed. Then killing the teachers really is self-defense. 

On a lighter note, SCOTUS says a football coach at a public high school is permitted to pray in the middle of the field because to rule it not permissible would be an infringement on his ability to practice his religion. 

SCOTUS... which now should be called SCROTUS, has taken upon itself the need to force some kind of religion down our throats. I mean, let's call it what it is: New American Christianity. Even with three women on the bench, all of whom will lose their civil rights, including Handmaid Coney Barrett, it has become a chamber of misogynistic horror.

New American Christianity is an entirely new religion, based on hate, greed, and slavish devotion to a cult figure, not Jesus. This is the religion of MAGA. I don't know about you, gentle readers, but my Christian friends appear not to be subscribing to this distortion of their faith. Viewing the January 6th footage should be enough to freeze your blood. Is this how you see Christian America? If it is, you need to put on your red hat and go stand with the other insurrectionists.

You think I'm kidding about the Christianity part, right? Our dear friend and law whore Justice Clarence Thomas pretty much explained that overturning Roe v. Wade is not the end. In his supporting opinion, he wrote:

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

And for the record, late Justice Scalia said of Justice Clarabell: "[He] doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."

Know what those cases are? Let me enlighten you.

• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception".
• Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional.The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated.The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.
• Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by law, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Wanna know what's missing from that list? Loving v. Virginia. 

• 
  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
  
  

Gee; I wonder why. If he wasn't married to Ginni "the Insurrectionist" Thomas, I'm sure it would be. 

Now, I guess all those appointees to SCROTUM can claim they had a change of heart about Roe v. Wade when they voted to overturn. 

Let's look at that for a moment in the light of Stare Decisis:

...a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed".[4] In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components:

·      A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.

·      A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.

The question that keeps popping up is: Did Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett all perjure themselves during their confirmation hearings? Let's look at what they actually said:

Neil M. Gorsuch, during his 2017 confirmation hearings, said Roe was a 'a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases.” Gorsuch was referring to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe. 'So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other,” Gorsuch said.

Brett M. Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearing during his 2018 confirmation hearings, echoed Gorsuch by saying that Roe was an 'important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.'

Barrett said she was committed to obeying “all the rules of stare decisis,” promising that “if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors.”

In a word, no. They did not necessarily perjure themselves, although none were totally honest about their intentions. They may have all invoked stare decisis, but I guarantee they were vetted with If the occasion arises, will you overturn?  The answer is clearly "yes."

This does not bode well for our nation. SCROTUM is poised to diminish hard won civil rights for citizens of all races, creeds, and economic divisions. Overturning Roe v. Wade means no law is sacred and protected from an activist reactionary court. Suddenly, old amendments aren't so chiseled in stone, are they? SCROTUM cannot just repeal or overturn an amendment, but it can overturn settled law based on the reading of an amendment. 

For the record, I think this one is gonna come up real soon: Engle v. Vitale because it comes up all the time. See above...the coach praying in the middle of a football field...and Justice Clarabell is setting his sights on the next round. Separation of church and state is officially in the crosshairs. 

We stand at a precarious crossroad. The civil rights this court is systematically stripping away will be hard to get back. We, the People, don't want to live in a third world country, but that's where this court is pointing us. If you had any doubts about why the Democrats are doing the January 6th hearings in such a public manner, this is why: it is the antithesis of SCROTUM. The whole country gets to see and hear what happened from the eyes and mouths of people involved both at the front and the back of the insurrection. Even the bozos who refused seats on the committee are backtracking because the Dems are making them look like co-conspirators without having to do a thing. And those who were in the Oval Office are really big about pointing out how they personally warned Feckless Leader this was insane. 

Of course, up close and personal is not gonna be enough, even when coupled with SCROTUM's refusal to recognize the civil rights of women, to ensure the midterms don't go red. As repetitive as this sounds, if you sit on your ass and do nothing, you are just as culpable as the MAGA idiots. As Albert Einstein wrote in 1954,

In long intervals I have expressed an opinion on public issues whenever they appeared to me so bad and unfortunate that silence would have made me feel guilty of complicity.

He was right, y'know. 

But it's so much easier to pretend it will all work itself out.

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

Be like Einstein.